19.5.2001 EN C 150/5Official Journal of the European Communities
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT JUDGMENT OF THE COURT(Fifth Chamber)(Second Chamber)of 18 January 2001 of 18 January 2001in Case C-150/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling fromin Case C-113/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling fromthe Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)): Herta Schmid v the Svea Hovrätt, Sweden): Svenska Staten v StockholmLindöpark AB and between Stockholm Lindöpark AB andFinanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich undBurgenland
(Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes(Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Minimum tax on capital companies) — Common system of value added tax — Sixth Directive —Exemptions — Letting of immovable property — Practice of sport or physical education)
(2001/C 150/08)(2001/C 150/09)
(Language of the case: German)(Language of the case: Swedish)(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be publishedin the European Court Reports)(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be publishedin the European Court Reports)
In Case C-113/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Verwaltungsger-In Case C-150/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of ichtshof (Administrative Court), Austria, for a preliminary the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Svea Hovrättruling in the proceedings pending before that court between(Svea Court of Appeal), Sweden for a preliminary ruling in theHertaSchmid,actingasinsolvencyadministratorforP.P.Hand-proceedings pending before that court between Svenska Statenels GmbH, in liquidation, and Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,(Swedish State) and Stockholm Lindöpark AB and betweenNiederösterreich und Burgenland — on the interpretation of Stockholm Lindöpark AB and Svenska Staten (Swedish State)Article 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969— on the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(m) andconcerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, EnglishArticle 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as amended by Council17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the MemberDirective 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23)States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value— the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris,added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward,N. Colneric, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; R. Grass,acting as President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) andRegistrar, has given a judgment on 18 January 2001, in whichL. Sevo´n, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. vonit has ruled:Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given ajudgment on 18 January 2001, in which it has ruled:
On its proper construction, Article 10 of Council Directive
The provisions of Article 13A(1)(m) and 13B(b) of the Sixth69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on theCouncil Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on theraising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to10 June 1985, does not preclude the levying, as against insolventturnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniformcapital companies lacking own revenue or whose annual revenue doesbasis of assessment, preclude national legislation from providingnot exceed a certain amount, of a minimum tax, such as that at issuefor a general exemption from value added tax for the supply of in the main proceedings, payable for each quarter in respect of whichpremises and other facilities and the related supply of accessoriesthose companies have unlimited liability to corporation tax.or other arrangements for the practice of sport or physicaleducation, including services supplied by profit-making organis-ations.
) OJ C 160 of 5.06.1999.
The provisions of Article 17(1) and (2) of Directive 77/388,read together with those of Articles 2, 6(1) and 13B(b), aresufficiently clear, precise and unconditional for an individual torely on them as against a Member State before a national court.